Internet use involves accessing one or more remote Internet servers for purposes of downloading information or digital files as well as uploading files and messages. Access is accomplished by connecting a terminal or terminal means to a carrier network. Terminal means include traditional terminals, personal computers (PC), game console devices equipped with network connectivity and voice over internet protocol (VoIP) telephone systems. Additional devices are used between the terminal means and the carrier network. Such devices include local networking electronic devices as well as electronic devices that connect a local network or terminal means to an external network. Examples of local networking devices include network hubs, network switches, network bridges, network interface cards, and the like. Examples of devices to connect a local network to an external network include routers, cable modems, DSL modems, dial-up modems, and the like.
As used herein, Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) includes terminal means (such as terminals, personal computer, game consoles or VoIP telephone system), local networking devices and electronic devices to connect a local network to an external network such as a carrier network.
As used herein, a “Carrier Network” generally refers to a computer network through which users communicate with various service providers (e.g. Internet web servers). The Carrier Network may be an external network extending from the local network to other external networks, for example, the Internet or “world wide web”. The Carrier Network is maintained by a “Carrier,” which also may serve as a service provider for certain services. For example, a Carrier or a related entity may serve as an Internet service provider (ISP).
Carrier Networks include “Shared Access Carrier Networks,” in which data of multiple users are conveyed together over a shared communications medium between the users and the Intermediate Network, and “Dedicated Connection Carrier Networks,” in which data of each user is conveyed alone between the user and the Intermediate Network and are not combined with data of other users. One of the most prevalent Shared Access Carrier Networks today is found in the Data-Over-Cable (DOC) Network, which includes the traditional network constructed from coaxial cable and the hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) network constructed with both fiber optical cabling and coaxial cable. Other Shared Access Carrier Networks include wireless and digital subscriber line (xDSL) networks (the xDSL lines typically being aggregated onto an oversubscribed backhaul trunk into the Intermediate Network, with the trunk defining the shared communications medium).
Network carriers and their equipment providers have adopted industry standards in order to increase interchangeability and reduce manufacturing costs for network hardware. For example, DOC Carriers have adopted industry standards such as the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS). DOCSIS version 1.0 was issued in 1997 with hardware devices being certified starting in 1999. DOCSIS version 1.1 replaced version 1.0 in 1999-2001 and now accounts for the bulk of installed DOC network equipment. Although released, DOSIS version 2.0 is not yet widely available. As a result, networks conforming to DOCSIS (i.e. DOCSIS-compliant) use DOCSIS version 1.1 hardware in most cases.
FIG. 1 illustrates an example of such a typical DOCSIS-compliant network. Data packets are transmitted in a downstream direction from a cable modem termination system (CMTS) 21, which is located in headend 31 (or distribution hub) of a Carrier, over a coaxial cable 22 to respective cable modems (CMs) 14 of user local networks. CMs may attach a single terminal means to the DOCSIS-compliant network or may further comprise electronics that function as a network hub (e.g. Ethernet hub) or router function. Many times, the CMs are provided with “firewall” software that is used to block undesirable accesses to the attached local network.
All of CMs 14 are attached by the coaxial cable 22 to the CMTS 21 in an inverted tree configuration, and each CM 14 connected to the coaxial cable 22 listens to all broadcasts from the CMTS 21 transmitted through the coaxial cable 22 for data packets addressed to it, and ignores all other data packets addressed to other CMs 14.
Theoretically, a CM 14 is capable of receiving data in the downstream direction over a 6 MHz channel with a maximum connection speed of 30-40 Mbps. Data packets also are transmitted in the upstream direction over a 2 MHz channel by the CMs 14 to the CMTS 21 typically using time division multiplexing (TDM) and at a maximum connection speed of 1.5-10 Mbps (up to 30 Mbps when DOCSIS version 2.0 is available)
The headend 31 in the DOCSIS Network includes a plurality of CMTSs, with each CMTS supporting multiple groups of CMs each connected together by a respective coaxial cable. Each such group of CMs connected to a CMTS defines a Shared Access Carrier Network, with the coaxial cable in each representing the shared communications medium. This arrangement of a group of CMs connected to a CMTS by a coaxial cable is referred to herein as a “Cable Network.” Accordingly, the DOCSIS network includes a plurality of Cable Networks 20 originating from CMTSs at the headend 31 of the Carrier, with a particular Cable Network 21 being illustrated in an expanded view in FIG. 1. The DOCSIS network may also include multiple headends, for example, 31, 32 and 33.
Data transmission over a DOCSIS network can be thought of as a downstream data path and an upstream data path. Downstream paths normally refer to transmission from a web server to a terminal means, for example a terminal 11 or personal computer 12. Upstream data transmission is the opposite with data originating in terminal 11, personal computer 12 or other terminal means. For purposes of this invention, customer premises equipment 20 includes the cable modems 14, terminals 11, personal computers 12, other terminal means and related interconnections, power sources, etc.
The more general case of customer premises equipment attached to an external network is illustrated in FIG. 2. Terminal means 15 are interconnected to a local area network hub 16 over compatible wiring or fiber optic links. In turn, LAN hub 16 is connected to an external connectivity electronics 17 that attaches to the external network 18 to become part of carrier network 28. Telephone systems for voice over Internet 15b may be attached to a media terminal adapter 15a that is connected to LAN hub 16. It is also common for the media terminal adapter 15a to be integrated into VoIP telephone system 15b and as a further alternative, media adapter 15a may be configured for direct connection to external network 18.
FIG. 3 illustrates a special case of a DOCSIS compatible network. Cable modem and local area network hub have been combined into a single cable modem hub 19. Such configurations have become particularly popular recently and include both wired and wireless (short distance FM) connections to terminal means. The telephone system 15b for VoIP is shown connected to the cable modem via the media terminal adapter 15a. 
The amount of data transmitted between the local and external networks is commonly termed “bandwidth.” Recently, carrier networks as well as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have begun charging customers on the basis of the bandwidth they consume. Consumption is bi-directional and totals the sum of upload and download data transmissions.
Bandwidth charges are of two types: totalized bandwidth charges and bandwidth rate charges. In totalized bandwidth charges, a carrier or ISP will charge a customer based upon the total number of bytes transmitted or received by a customer during a billing cycle. For example, a charge may be based upon the number of gigabytes transmitted per month.
In contrast, bandwidth rate charges are determined by the speed of bandwidth used or reserved for a client. For example, a customer may pay for 10 megahertz of reserved bandwidth from a particular ISP or carrier. Customers can be either limited to the amount of reserved bandwidth, or in the alternative, be allowed to exceed the reserved bandwidth rate. In this second alternative, the ISP or network carrier will apply a surcharge for the bandwidth rate exceeding the reserved limit.
When the subscriber receives a bill from the network carrier, it is important that the subscriber has a way to reconcile against that bill and modify their behavior based on “real-time” knowledge of when they are exceeding certain bandwidth limits. It will also be extremely valuable to control this data transfer based on configurable options that provide the flexibility the subscriber would desire.
Cable networks provide a particular dilemma when allocating bandwidth charges. Although many cable network carriers do not charge retail customers for bandwidth, they may incur bandwidth charges from other external networks or ISPs. As a result, many cable network customers consider they have “free bandwidth” up to the limit of the speed of the attaching cable modem. Similarly, users of digital subscriber line networks (xDSL) may often pay a single charge per connection and customers consider they have free bandwidth up to the limit of the DSL modem.
Free bandwidth has encouraged the rapid growth of peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. P2P networks make use of customer computing platforms to provide virtual servers. Customers, when not faced with additional bandwidth charges may feel free to allow their computing platforms to be utilized in this manner. In addition, cable networks may be configured with customer computing platforms always actively connected to the external network. The virtual servers act as data repositories that can be easily accessed from non-local terminal means.
One common use of P2P networks is in webcasting. Although a webcaster could broadcast messages to all receiving customers, such an arrangement would result in the webcaster absorbing all bandwidth charges. Instead the webcaster will use P2P networks, taking advantage of “free” bandwidth provided by cable network customers. Some webcasters have announced saving 60-75% of bandwidth charges by using P2P networks.
Another use of P2P networks is for freely shared file repositories. Popular for these repositories are sharing of music or video programs, including MP3 formatted digital music files.
P2P networks rely upon the virtual server application programs that permit and support file sharing from the external network to a local network connected computing platform. Popular virtual server application programs include KaZaa, Grokster, Morpheus, Gnucleus, BearShare, iMesh, LimeWire, eDonkey, BadBlue, WinMX, AudioGalaxy, Blubster, Filetopia, Net Brillant, Phex, Shareaza, Splooge, Swapper, Swaptor, Wippit and the like.
Many of the P2P networks further encourage users to provide file sharing by including an embedded “participation level.” For example, KaZaa users with higher participation levels receive and download files on a faster basis than users with lower participation. The application assigns user participation levels by determining the amount of megabytes of files external users have accessed. As a result, a KaZaa user sharing 10 megabytes will have a lower participation level than a user sharing 10 gigabytes. Furthermore, many P2P users while generally aware of how much data they have downloaded to their computer, they may not be aware of how many public users are connecting to their system transferring files as well.
This burgeoning P2P network traffic is causing ever increasing concerns amongst carrier networks. In 2001, Cornell University reported that 60% of their external network traffic was related to P2P sharing, with 64% of the P2P traffic being uploads.
Carrier networks and ISPs are responding to P2P by imposing significantly higher bandwidth charges. However higher bandwidth charges is not a panacea as it both discourages customer P2P bandwidth and encourages P2P bandwidth use by webcasters.
Many ISPs also offer instant messenger applications that transmit messages to identified destinations within a short time period. Instant messenger applications are offered by Microsoft Network (MSN IM), Yahoo (Yahoo Messenger), Road Runner (RR Messenger), America Online (AOL IM), ICQ Messenger, Jabber Messenger and the like. Typical bandwidth usage for instant messaging is modest. However, users may have strong desire to reserve bandwidth for instant messaging on a high priority basis.
Customers are now finding it desirable to lower their bandwidth charges while having the least restriction on their bandwidth usage. In order to do so, customers require a means to monitor their bandwidth and take actions to reduce bandwidth to acceptable limits with minimum impact upon their users.
Thus what would be useful is a system and method by which customers are able to monitor and control local area network bandwidth consumed from outside networks. In the past, control of bandwidth has taken place an “enterprise” basis. Unfortunately, enterprise based approaches often create significant interference with customer critical applications and are less than optimum. Enterprise bandwidth control, of necessity, resides outside the connectivity interface between the local and external networks. As a result it cannot optimize to the same degree of detail that a local bandwidth controller is able.
As is demonstrated below, applicants have developed a localized bandwidth monitor and controller that is flexible yet can optimize bandwidth to a detail, not previously available.